The Economic and Clinical Case for Continuous Patient Monitoring
General wards are still one of the biggest blind spots in healthcare. In many hospitals, vital signs are checked only every 4–6 hours. That means patients are effectively unmonitored for 95–96% of the time.
A lot can happen in those hours.
Deterioration does not wait for the next scheduled spot check.
Our new white paper on Health Economics of Continuous Monitoring looks at the evidence.
And the message is clear.
Continuous vital sign monitoring with wearables can make a real difference.
Not only for patient safety.
Also for hospital efficiency and cost of care.
The Case for Change: Why Intermittent Monitoring Falls Short
The Monitoring Gap on General Wards
Intermittent monitoring of vital signs, typically coupled with an early warning score, remains the standard of
care in most general and surgical wards.3 This approach presents significant limitations that directly impact
patient safety and operational efficiency.
Critical Limitations of Intermittent Monitoring:
• Time Between Checks: 4-6 hour intervals may be too long for timely recognition of clinical
deterioration4,5
• Snapshot Limitations: Spot checks provide only a point-in-time view, preventing meaningful trend analysis6
• Nursing Burden: Manual vital sign collection places significant burden on already stretched nursing capacity4
• Sleep Disruption: Nightly checks disrupt patient rest and recovery7
• Discharge Limitations: Current technology cannot extend monitoring post-discharge, potentially
prolonging hospitalization6